Journal of Applied Hermeneutics ISSN: 1927-4416 December 1, 2020 ãThe Author(s) 2020 Dialogical Breakdown and Covid-19: Solidarity and Disagreement in a Shared World Cynthia R. Nielsen & David Liakos Abstract This article considers the limitations, but also the insights, of Gadamerian hermeneutics for understanding and responding to the crisis precipitated by the Covid-19 pandemic. Our point of departure is the experience of deep disagreements amid the pandemic, and our primary example is ongoing debates in the United States about wearing masks. We argue that, during this dire situation, interpersonal mutual understanding is insufficient for resolving such bitter disputes. Rather, following Gadamer’s account of our dialogical experience with an artwork, we suggest that our encounter with the virus gives rise to new ways of seeing and experiencing ourselves and the world. Further, we draw on Gadamer’s account of the fusion of horizons to show how even competing perspectives on wearing masks arise within a shared space of meaning created by the virus. These insights provide hope for an improved model of political dialogue in the world of Covid-19. Keywords Covid-19, Dialogue, Hans-Georg Gadamer, Pandemic, Polarization, Political Disagreement In the last analysis, Goethe’s statement ‘Everything is a symbol’ is the most comprehen- sive formulation of the hermeneutical idea. It means that everything points to some other thing. This ‘everything’ is not an assertion about each being, indicating what it is, but an assertion as to how it is to encounter man’s understanding. There is nothing that cannot mean something to it. But the statement implies something else as well: nothing comes forth just in the one meaning that is offered to us. Hans-Georg Gadamer, “Aesthetics and Hermeneutics,” (pp. 130–131) Corresponding Author: Cynthia Nielsen, PhD Email: [email protected] 2 Nielsen & Liakos Journal of Applied Hermeneutics 2020 Article 11 Like many others, our present experience is the challenging, straining, monotonous, and alto- gether unnatural situation of sheltering-in-place due to the Covid-19 pandemic. In America, this already bleak experience is further exacerbated by the politicization of the pandemic. For exam- ple, in the United States to wear a mask is frequently perceived as supporting one political party, whereas deciding not to wear one may signal support for another. Dialogue between both sides has become nearly impossible with each seeing the other as enemies. The situation is even worse, however, because public sources of knowledge—whether news articles or scientific studies—are increasingly viewed by each side as merely distorted interpretations or even outright falsehoods offered to bolster or further a social, cultural, or political agenda. The power of proclaiming something “fake news” and then utterly dismissing it seems to have won the day, whether such proclamations come from the highest political office in the country or from one’s family member. If neither of the opposing sides trusts the other, and each side fears that the other has an agenda that radically conflicts with his or her own way of being in, inhabiting, and understanding the world, is anything like genuine dialogue possible? If each side believes that the other’s view involves, is motivated by, or is built upon ethically or morally problematic principles and values, can true dialogue and compromise occur? If the other refuses to listen to you, and you refuse to listen to him because you both believe that the other is lying, does not value truth, or wants to bring about a world in which you cannot see yourself being at home, dialogue becomes, so it seems, impossible. In situations of dialogical breakdown, does the hermeneutical tradition—that is, the philosophy of understanding and interpretation which emphasizes how, as the poet Friedrich Hölderlin famously put it, we are a conversation—have anything to offer? In particular, what if one listens attentively and expects to learn something from the other, but at the end of the day finds the other’s view reprehensible? No matter how eloquently a white supremacist presents his position, for example, he will not convince us to accept it. Of course, we may gain a clearer understanding of his position and perhaps why he is convinced by the teachings of white supremacy; however, his way of seeing the world and others is one that we fundamentally reject. According to Hans- Georg Gadamer’s hermeneutics, a successful dialogue need not result in one accepting or agree- ing with the other’s position, but rather what counts is a greater understanding of the subject matter at issue in that conversation.1 Given these parameters, we can say that our dialogue with the white supremacist was at least in part “successful” to the extent that we now have a better understanding of his position. But if the white supremacist has a political agenda, and worse, the political power to carry it out, then what? A “successful” or “partially successful” dialogue in this instance seems utterly insufficient. Something more than an expanded understanding is needed when dialogical breakdown occurs. In what follows, we attempt to dwell with and take seriously the difficulty, frustration, and dead-end experience of dialogical breakdown. Then, we will turn to dialogue with an unlikely (and certainly unwelcome) dialogue partner—namely, Covid-19. Perhaps surprisingly, such a dialogue not only manifests similarities with and connec- tions to Gadamer’s reflections on our dialogical engagement with art and on the phenomenon he calls the “fusion of horizons,” but also discloses, we shall argue, hermeneutical insights that are relevant for understanding and also moving forward in response to our situation. Let us return to the example mentioned earlier of wearing masks in public. Here we have Sabrina, who, having listened to various medical experts and educated herself through reading articles issued from nationally and even globally recognized science-based organizations, chooses to 3 Nielsen & Liakos Journal of Applied Hermeneutics 2020 Article 11 wear a mask in public in order to mitigate as much as possible the spread of the virus and, of course, to protect herself. Sabrina’s colleague, Jeremy, on the other hand, sees mask-wearing as a fundamental violation of his rights and as one of many incremental steps devised by the govern- ment to more fully control its citizens. Jeremy also both distrusts the “mainstream” media sources reporting on Covid-19 and believes that the number of cases and fatalities have been inflated.2 He is likewise suspicious of the medical experts and their claims regarding the need for everyone—whether symptomatic or asymptomatic—to wear masks. Sabrina and Jeremy have tried to engage one another in dialogue; however, their attempts have been fruitless. Jeremy, in fact, has said that he will not wear his mask in public or at his workplace, which, of course, concerns Sabrina since the two work together. Jeremy’s employer may require that he wear his mask or be fired, which solves the workplace issue. But it may also be the case that Jeremy’s employer looks the other way and does not enforce the “recommended” mask-wearing policy, since the governing authorities in his region have not officially mandated wearing masks for those who work in this particular field. When science-based recommendations and the advice of medical experts trained in virology and other medical sciences become politicized and opposing sides fundamentally distrust one another, dialogue with the other on how to live together in shared spaces in the midst of a pandemic seems to go nowhere.3 Given our crisis, where so many lives are at stake and dialogue among opposing parties—both at the existential and grassroots level and among politicians with the power to make policy deci- sions—has either failed or resulted in no significant changes in perspectives or behaviors, how should we proceed? What do we do when expanding one’s understanding of the other’s position is not enough? Lastly, is the type of scenario sketched above a fundamental threat to Gadamer’s insights on dialogical interactions? While Gadamerian hermeneutics certainly entails an ethical dimension and has implications for social and political practice, it has its limits and cannot be expected to provide answers to all of our political problems. Our remarks about the shortcomings of dialogue at our present moment of crisis should in no way be taken, however, to suggest that dialogue is futile or should not be pursued, a point to which we will return later. Healthy dialogue is absolutely crucial for thriving personal relationships as well as our civic well-being. If an individual or communal bond has so deteriorated that trust and the other’s credibility are strained to the point of practical non- existence, though, something more than or in addition to dialogue is needed—or perhaps an expanded view of dialogue is needed. Furthermore, if one party’s words, actions, and policies are putting others in grave danger, action motivated and informed by knowledge and the relevant expertise and experience must be taken to mitigate and prevent such harm. With the United States having as of November 18 surpassed 250,000 deaths, we can hope for and commit our- selves to civic and interpersonal dialogue that results in changed ways of seeing and being; but given the extremely dire circumstances and the lives at stake, we must also listen to medical experts and take immediate actions such as wearing masks, avoiding large indoor gatherings, and engaging in appropriate “social distancing” (Almasy, Hanna, & Holcombe, 2020; MacFarquhar, 2020). Such actions signal and affirm our shared human condition—namely, a condition of vulnerability and a recognition of our interdependence. We are in this together whether we like it or not (and whether we like each other or not).